It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could Titor Have Been One of THEM?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:33 AM
Last night I was thinking about the stuff Titor said, and thought to myself:

Why would rural people revolt? Aren't most protesters from the city? Most people who are on ATS and oppose NWO are probably from cities or suburbs, so maybe in the eyes of those who deny ignorance, the WRONG 3 billion people die. Maybe Titor was just brainwashed into believing his new government was good.


posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:41 AM

Originally posted by invader_chris
Why would rural people revolt? Aren't most protesters from the city?

It seems as if people from the city just talk about revolting, rural people actually do revolt. Remember Ruby Ridge? Just imagine all those back country militias that are just trigger happy for a revolution to emerge.

Originally posted by invader_chris
the WRONG 3 billion people die. Maybe Titor was just brainwashed into believing his new government was good.

This is where I lose you. Can you rephrase it?

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:47 AM
Rural people are the ones who have the most power now, look at the U.S. country-by-county election map of 2004. The cities voted Democrat and the suburbs and rural areas voted Republican. The Republicans won, so I don't see a reason for rural revolt anytime soon, as Titor predicted.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 11:18 AM
Hmm...after reading your posts, maybe the freedom-fighters are on the other side. This would mean that the cities try to resist Republican NWO-style control.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:32 PM
Well I'm in a fairly rural part of Illinios and were all to mellow and lazy to revolt. True, rural people would have a higher chance of success thanks to our ability to influence food supply and by having less police pressence, that and many rural areas have less gun control than many cities (Cook County compared to say Mchenry county around my area for example).

Anyhow it's possible that the cities could revolt, however in cities the police pressence is so much higher and sofisticated that riot control can react quicker. On the other hand it's harder to coverup placing an entire city under martial law.

So in the end I'm not really sure what would have happened in Titor's so called timeline. Anyhow I'm thinking cities are more likely to revolt, but the rural areas would have a better chance of success. Of course I don't even believe that Titor BS so this is all just a hypothetical scinerio (SP?) which could happen, but probably not as Titor says it will.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:34 PM
Well we have to ask ourselves the question,"why would the rural/farming sectors revolt?"

Well one good reason would be the cutting back of subsidies provided to farmers on the foodstuffs the produce.

From Linked Article
The New York Times
February 6, 2005
Bush Is Said to Seek Sharp Cuts in Subsidy Payments to Farmers

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 - President Bush will seek deep cuts in farm and commodity programs in his new budget and in a major policy shift will propose overall limits on subsidy payments to farmers, administration officials said Saturday.

Such limits would help reduce the federal budget deficit and would inject market forces into the farm economy, the officials said.

The proposal puts Mr. Bush at odds with some of his most ardent supporters in the rural South, including cotton and rice growers in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and more than 100 farm groups are gearing up to fight the White House proposal. The administration's willingness to push the proposal, despite such protests, suggests how tight the new budget will be.


This is going to really put the squeeze on rural people and the real reason Bush is doing it is to finance his wars. Lets not forget that the "civil war" Titor talks about is not in full swing until 2008, which is still a fair way off.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Well I'm in a fairly rural part of Illinios and were all to mellow and lazy to revolt.


Just kidding, also you have a point about the food supply thing. I doubt Chicago will last long on radioactive fish and Nabiso cookies.

I guess no one will know how it happens until it happens. Whichever side it may be, I'm joining the side that wants freedom.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 06:32 PM
I guess either side could have good reason for revolt. One thing to consider is that what if both sides are fighting for freedom? Say they both want power or something.

Anyhow if a civil war were to break out, I'm guessing that it would be a stalemate. In the rural areas there aren't enough soldiers to attack a city. I doubt that DuPage, Kane, or Mchenry combined could actually invade Chicago. However due to terrain differences, and gun ownership I'd like to see Chicago invade Kane County (thats were I'm from). Of course I have to much loyalty to Chicago to go to war with it, I'm a bears fan. However I have absolutly no loyalty to LA or NYC, lol.

Still I don't think that such a war would work out, both areas need each other too much to survive against each other. I'm guessing that if this did happen, it would be resolved too quickly to be much of a civil war. So I guess thats the main flaw in Titor's bedtime story.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:52 PM
Titor is not one of "them" he's one of your types. A stupid dumbass.

posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:56 PM
Definition of DUMBASS:new members who post one line replies which don't contribute anything to the thread.

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:03 AM
That was weird, a member comes on and gets banned in the space of about a day. Must be our moderators and Skeptic at work, helping to keep ATS clear of the board trolls.

new topics

top topics


log in